Dear Editor
WITH respect to an open letter addressed to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) dated on July 11, 2020, and written by a group calling itself the Organised Civil Society of Venezuela,” I make these observations. First of all, the views expressed are not to be considered as the considered views of the Venezuelan Government nor the people of Venezuela. The views expressed by the individuals are representative of a small clique of Venezuelans who practise an ideology called irredentism.

Irredentism is derived from an Italian term meaning irredento (‘‘unredeemed’’). In today’s world, the Irredentist seeks to create a Greater X, with the X being his or her country. For instance, the Serbs wanted a Greater Serbia. As a result, the affair was a bloody one, by any standards. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives in pursuit of the Greater X. Indeed,there were consequences for those who perpetuated the Irredentist claims of a Greater X.

For instance, Slobodan Miloševi? who pursued these dreams, was charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia with war crimes in connection with the wars in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. He became the first sitting head of state to be charged with war crimes. He died in his detention centre after waiting four years for his trial to end.The case continued after his death and he was eventually convicted.
Virtually all of the Irredentist cases brought before the International Court of Justice have failed. In one such case, Honduras versus Nicaragua, Nicaragua wanted to increase its territory and made similar arguments like Venezuela. Nicaragua argued that the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain in 1906 was “null and void.” The International Court of Justice rejected this argument. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction. On the substantive issues, the court ruled that Nicaragua, (like Venezuela), had already recognised the Award as valid and it is “no longer open to Nicaragua to go back upon that recognition.” So both Serbia and Nicaragua lost their cases, along with many other Irredentist claims too numerous to mention here.

Throughout history, the Irredentists pursue their claims when they have considerable domestic issues. Generally, they have a penchant for distracting the general population from focusing on those domestic issues. For example, the mass migration of Venezuelans to other countries or the marginalisation of Venezuelans in other countries such as Colombia and Brazil, where thousands are being affected by the COVID-19 virus.
Contrary to what the Organised Civil Society of Venezuela is saying, Venezuelans have historically had very limited interest in British Guiana. There were virtually no cultural nor linguistic ties between the two countries. From the early 19th century when Venezuela was about to be recognised as a sovereign state, the war lords were largely interested in securing and consolidating their own political power in Venezuela. The military rulers consistently failed to demarcate the boundaries between the two countries. It was not until the era of the Gold Rush that Venezuela started to pay any attention to its boundaries. Most notably in 1840, when the German surveyor, Robert Schomburgk began his survey on behalf of the British Government.

Based on the Schomburgk line, Venezuela took possession of most of the territories which it wanted, including the Amakuru River and Point Barima, which is of strategic importance. Venezuela also took control of the entire Orinoco River. In the interior, Venezuela got another 3,000 miles of extent land. However, Venezuela still had some reservations because the Essequibo and Cuyuni Rivers were not included, they now lay on the eastern part of the Schomburgk line as British Guiana. However, good sense did prevail among the official representatives.
Immediately after the Arbitral Award was made in 1899, Severo Mallet-Prevost, the lawyer who represented Venezuela’s interests before the tribunal, stated that the Award was “Venezuela’s victory”. Mallet-Prevost was emphatic about the “victory”, and stated that the Award was of great value to Venezuela since it granted that country the Orinoco estuary. The official Venezuelan position was also of general satisfaction. Venezuela’s Ambassador to Great Britain, Jose Andrade, stated that “…We were given the exclusive dominion over the Orinoco, which was the principal aim we sought to achieve through arbitration…” The voluminous records in Washington D.C., Paris, and London are replete with these types of sentiments.

It was not until Guyana was about to become an independent nation-state that Venezuela substantially changed its position. In fact, they waited until the last of the British troops left Guyana in October 1966 to execute their operation in Guyana. Venezuela used the element of surprise and promptly occupied Ankoko Island. The lesson here is that the Irredentist, as a practising ideologue, will always execute his or her devious plans in the absence of a strong deterrent. The open letter does not address any of the procedural or substantive issues which the ICJ is concerned with, namely, the Arbitral Award of 1899 and ICJ jurisdiction to here the case. The author (s) wrote: “From the organised civil society in Venezuela we have been assuming by vocation, the study, understanding, dissemination and defence of the legitimate rights that assist us in the Esequibo claim, dedicating our energies and service capacity to the cause, addressing documentary investigations and work of field in the vicinity of the disputed area, mainly through the NGO “Mi Maps”, which since 2010 has been continuously activist.”

The Irredentist group finally revealed their true colors when they conceded that Venezuela would not submit to the court’s jurisdiction. The open letter said: ”Both the unilateral trial that Guyana has initiated under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and the resulting decision, are not applicable or binding on Venezuela, in principle because our country must not submit its sovereignty or compromise its territorial integrity to the resolution of any international organisation, and second, because the same regulation of the court in its article 36, establishes that it only has jurisdiction over those disputes to which the parties submit, and for which the jurisdiction of the international tribunal is recognised by declaration, something that has not happened with Venezuela, which has expressed to the point of exhaustion its non-recognition of the competence of the aforementioned body, and the resounding refusal to bind itself to any decision emanating from it.”
The statements made by the author illustrates that an Irredentist has little or no respect for the sanctity of treaties, particularly the Treaty of Washington signed by Venezuela in 1897 and the Geneva Agreement signed by Venezuela in 1966.

The prima facie interpretation of the Geneva Agreement shows that Venezuela consented to United Nations jurisdiction. In fact, all of the relevant parties expressly consented to accept the decision of the United Nations Secretary- General with respect to the means of resolution of any controversy over the validity of the 1899 Award, including judicial settlement by the ICJ.
Regards
Winston Felix
(not Minister Felix)